The High Court of Nagpur dismissed a writ petition seeking land restoration or acquisition under the 2013 Act. The court held that a valid registered sale-deed stands implied, and the petitioners failed to establish tribal status necessary for restoration remedies, making the writ devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 wp2823.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2823 OF 2024
( Maroti s/o Rama Atram and others ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Yavatmal and others )
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, J J . DATED : 30-04-2024
Heard Mr. A. Mankar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2 wp2823.24
Code of 1966 with directions to restore land Gat No.15, area admeasuring 4.73 Hectares situated at Mouza Pardi, Tahsil Zari Jaamani, District Yavatmal in favour of the petitioners. In alternate, the petitioners have sought issuance of directions to the respondent authorities to acquire the land as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “Act of 2013”).
3 wp2823.24
petitioners about their legal rights that the land in question could have been acquired also under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which would have yielded more compensation than the consideration which was paid to the petitioners. The second submission of the learned Counsel Mr. Mankar is that the land in question which was owned by the petitioners, is protected pursuant to the provisions of the Restoration Act and the MLR Code of 1966. According to him, the petitioners have produced on record the Caste Certificate in relation to Aya Rama Atram i.e. petitioner No.2 who happened to be brother of petitioner No.1. As such, he would claim that by virtue of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Restoration Act, the land of the petitioners ought not to have been got transferred by respondent No.2 by executing sale-deed without there being permission from the Collector as is contemplated in law.
4 wp2823.24
jurisdiction. Her further contentions is, perusal of the recitals in the sale-deed depicts that the petitioners in vernacular i.e. Marathi Language, which was known to them, have received the consideration and executed the sale-deed which was duly registered. She would claim that pursuant to the provisions of Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 there is statutory presumption in favour of the ‘registered document’. So also, there is a similar provision under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which would arise to the effect that the events contained in the endorsement of registration, were regularly and duly performed and are correctly recorded. As such, the claim that the sale-deed was got registered by respondent No.2 by coercion or misrepresentation cannot be accepted. According to her, at the most the petitioners can take recourse to an alternate remedy which is permissible and advisable in law.
9. We have appreciated the aforesaid contentions.
5 wp2823.24
Restoration Act, the tribals’ land ought not to have been transferred in favour of respondent No.2.
6 wp2823.24
7 wp2823.24
Section 36A of the MLR Code of 1966 but also under the provisions of the Restoration Act to the Tribals.
8 wp2823.24
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
adgokar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a valid registered sale-deed bars a writ for land acquisition under the 2013 Act or restoration of tribal lands.
Whether the claim for tribal land protection succeeds where petitioners failed to establish tribal validity/certificates.
Whether the writ petition is barred by laches and failure to exhaust statutory appeals against the Collector's refusal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Maroti s/o Rama Atram and others
State of Maharashtra
Collector, Yavatmal
NITIN W. SAMBRE
ABHAY J. MANTRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
